Introduction

Sam Harris has a new book, The Moral Landscape, whose subtitle
claims, "How Science Can Determine Human Values." If you buy the book because of
the subtitle, you will be extremely frustrated and disappointed. Instead, Sam Harris has produced the ultimate book that "preaches to the choir" (in
this case, the atheistic choir) in order to attempt to shore up what is
undoubtedly one of the weakest aspects of atheism - the determination of moral
values.

Human evil

Although most atheists tend to minimize human selfishness, Sam Harris
genuinely sees it as humanity's major flaw.1
In fact, one of his statements instantly reminded me of what the Apostle Paul
said in Romans 7:2

"I know that helping people who are starving is far more
important than most of what I do. I also have no doubt that doing what is
most important would give me more pleasure and emotional satisfaction than I
get from most of what I do by seeking pleasure and emotional satisfaction.
But his knowledge does not change me. I still want to do what I do for
pleasure more than I want to help the starving."3

The fact that Harris himself acknowledges that he cannot live up to his own
moral values calls into question whether "science can determine human values" in
any meaningful way.

Human well-being

Sam Harris defines morality in terms of human well-being, with the intent
of morality to advance human well-being. Harris also
claims that human well-being is a function of the state of the brain.4 However,
no evidence is presented that suggests that any particular states of brain
can be produced in any particular way. In fact, there is evidence that
certain moral behaviors that the vast majority of us would classify as evil
produce a functional state of the brain that would be indicative of
well-being in those morally reprehensible individuals.

Harris says that "Changes in wealth, health, age, marital status, etc.,
tend not to matter as much as we think they will-and yet we make our most
important decisions in life based upon these inaccurate assumptions... we
are poorly placed to accurately recall the past, to perceive the present, or
to anticipate the future with respect to our own happiness. It seems little
wonder, therefore, that we are so often unfulfilled."5 (page 183-184) However,
the Bible describes a man had it all - hundreds of women, immense wealth,
and political power. However, at the end of his life he wrote one of the
most cynical works of all time, the Bible's book of Ecclesiastes. Even
though King Solomon had every physical pleasure a man could want, in his
book, he describes it all as vanity and futility.6
Christianity's claim is that all these material things cannot substitute for
a relationship with God. Dozens of scientific studies have shown that those
who practice some form of religion exhibit superior mental and physical
health compared to those who don't.7
Scientific data shows that adolescents who receive frequent religious
instruction behave more appropriately and are better adjusted to adult life
in society compared to their non-religious peers. In addition, those
children are also happier.8 Needless to say,
Sam Harris never bothered to cite such studies.

Determinism vs. free will

Like most atheists, Harris is a believer in determinism and
disbeliever in free will:

"You seem to be an agent acting of your own free will. As we shall
see, however, this point of view cannot be reconciled with what we know
about the human brain."

"All of our behavior can be traced to biological events about which
we have no conscious knowledge: this has always suggested that free will
is an illusion."

"I, as the subject of my experience, cannot know what I will next
think or do until a thought or intention arises; and thoughts and
intentions are caused by physical events and mental stirrings of which I
am not aware."9

I guess it is possible that Mr. Harris' brain operates in this manner -
which probably explains why his book seems so random at times. Seriously,
the implications of a belief in
determinism have serious consequences (mostly leading to increased
immoral behavior). Harris himself indicates that the Supreme Court has said
that a belief in determinism "is inconsistent with the underlying precepts
of our criminal justice system" (United States vs. Grayson, 1978).
Despite the obvious moral pitfalls of believing in determinism, Harris
insists that anyone examining their own life will "see that free will is
nowhere to be found."10 However, later in
the book, Harris seems to believe that choices are possible even despite a
complete lack of free will:

"Obviously, when I speak of 'freedom' and 'choices' of
this sort, I am not endorsing a metaphysical notion of 'free will'."11

Moral truth

In a surprising way, Sam Harris does not approve of any kind of moral
relativism. Instead, he believes that moral truth exists as does any other
kind of truth. Accordingly, Harris says, "It seems abundantly clear that many people are simply wrong about
morality-just as many people are wrong about physics, biology, and
oncology."12 Harris attributes the
ability to make moral choices to the evolution of the human brain, saying "Genetic changes in the brain gave rise to social emotions, moral
intuitions, and language."13 Although there is evidence for genetic
differences between humans and other apes possibly allowing us to create and
use language, Harris provides no evidence that changes in our genetics
resulted in the ability to form "social
emotions" and "moral intuitions."

Harris says that questions of morality should be determined
scientifically,14 and that "science has long
been in the values business."15 Harris
believes that science will advance to the point that
morality will be compulsory. He envisions the day when "lie detectors
ever become reliable, affordable, and unobtrusive" so that "we may come to
expect that certain places and occasions will require scrupulous truth
telling."16 Although this sound like a really
good idea in the right hands, one can easily imagine a dictatorial regime
that uses such technology to ruthlessly eliminate its opponents. What Harris
seems to have forgotten is that any and all advanced technology will be used
by evil men to accomplish their evil purposes.

Determining morality

Where The Moral Landscape really falls flat is its explanation
(or lack thereof) of exactly how science can determine moral values. Harris admits, "As we are about to see, population ethics is a notorious
engine of paradox, and no one, to my knowledge, has come up with a way of
assessing collective well-being that conserves all our intuitions."17
However, Harris does offer some solutions, specifically mentioning "the
interchangeability of perspective,"18 which is
just a restatement of the Golden Rule.19

Sam Harris readily admits that he is a political liberal20
and that liberals and
conservatives see the world in completely different ways. Harris represents the standard morality of liberals, saying, "Our system
of justice should reflect our understanding that each of us could have been
dealt a very different hand in life. In fact, it seems immoral not to
recognize just how much luck is involved in morality itself."21
Harris equates conservatism with "outright hypocrisy" saying, "The most
conservative regions of the United States tend to have the highest rates of
divorce and teenage pregnancy, as well as the greatest appetite for
pornography... If one wants examples of such hypocrisy, Evangelical
ministers and conservative politicians seem to rarely disappoint."22
He goes on to quote a study by Jost, et al,23
"Conservative ideologies, like virtually all other belief systems, are
adopted in part because they satisfy various psychological needs,"
describing such a statement as having "more than a whiff of euphamism."24 Of course,
liberal ideologies do not suffer from such deficits!

The really scary part of such liberal ideology is how Harris proposes to
solve our moral problems:

"We must build our better selves into our laws, tax codes, and
institutions. Knowing that we are generally incapable of valuing two
children more than either child alone, we must build a structure that
reflects and enforces our deeper understanding of human well-being."

Harris complains that most moral judgment results from emotional reaction
rather than logical analysis. However, he goes on to cite neuroimaging
experiments showing that psychopaths lack neural activity in the regions of
the brain associated with emotional stimuli. From such experiments, it is
clear that a completely logical brain, devoid of any emotional component,
could be a very dangerous thing.

Religion

Although The Moral Landscape devotes an entire chapter to religion, Sam Harris doesn't restrict his disdain of religion to only
this one chapter. Throughout the book, Harris provides a world of extremes, nearly always giving examples of evil
derived from religious extremism. His ultimate goal is to promote the idea
that all religion leads automatically to evil behavior. Not once does Harris
mention any of the good things that are done because people believe God has
called them to do such benevolent acts. Then he has the audacity to complain
that religious people characterize him unfairly saying, "It is often said
that we caricature religion, taking its most extreme forms to represent the
whole. We do no such thing."25 In reality, this is exactly what Harris does
throughout the book. One merely needs to randomly turn to almost any page to
find such examples.

On his chapter on religion, Harris tries to tie evolutionary theory to
the existence of moral belief based upon religion. On sexuality, he
claims that it is in the best interests of both males and females that
couples remain faithful to each other. However, he is forced to admit that
"evolution should actually favor indiscriminate heterosexual activity on the
part of men, as long as these scoundrels can avoid squandering their
resources in ways that imperil the reproductive success of their offspring."26 Other evolutionary reasons given for the existence of religion include
the fostering of xenophobia, which Harris says "may have offered some
protection against infectious illness: for to the degree that religion
divides people, it would inhibit the spread of novel pathogens."27

Harris has an interesting section on religious belief and brain
functioning. It seems that belief or disbelief in religious versus secular
statements elicits similar neurological responses in both religious and
non-religious people,28 suggesting that these
people really do believe what they say they believe. From these studies, it
wouldn't seem that science would ever be able to determine truth simply from
examining what people believe to be true.

Sam Harris saves his most vitriolic attack for scientists who believe in
God's existence. "The fact that some scientists do not detect any problem with
religious faith merely proves that a juxtaposition of good ideas and bad
ones is possible."29 Then Harris goes on a 15 page randomized
rant against Francis Collins, the director of National Institute of Health
(NIH) and an outspoken
Christian. Harris then implies that Collins shouldn't be the director of NIH
because of his Christian views, saying, "Is there a chance that Collins
would be running the NIH if he were an outspoken polytheist?" Imagine if the
United States were run by atheists like Sam Harris. We theists wouldn't even
be able to get a job.

Instead of providing any evidence that science can consistently provide
the best moral answer, Harris repeats standard atheistic myths, including
that the Roman Catholic Church's
condom policy is responsible for the spread of HIV.30 Harris
never attempts to examine the difficult moral issues like abortion and
euthanasia from a scientific viewpoint, but always picks only easy moral
choices (he really loves Muslim extremists and wacky Christians).

Sam Harris doesn't believe in the existence of any kind of spiritual
realm, but cites an interesting example of such beliefs in the Dobu
islanders. According to Ruth Benedict, "Life in Dobu fosters extreme forms of
animosity and malignancy which most societies have minimized by their
institutions. Dobuan institutions, on the other hand, exalt them to a high
degree."31 The Dobu practice sorcery and cast spells, which they pass down
from generation to generation. A good crop was attributed to either sorcery
or theft. Harris attributes such malevolent societies to ignorance and
obsession (mental illness?) However, a Christian would attribute such evil
to spiritual darkness. The Dobu do not merely have an ignorance issue, but
have a
spiritual issue, as well. Other societies have experienced these kinds of
spiritual issues, but have been cured, not through education, but through
the transforming power of Jesus Christ (see Eternity
in their Hearts. For example, a recent study32
examined the generosity of different primitive tribes that were either
engaged or not engaged in trading. There was a high correlation between
generosity and learned trading behavior. However, there were two striking
outliers - the non-trading Au
and the Sursurunga tribes of Papua New
Guinea. The article itself did not state a reason for the unexpected
generosity of these groups. However, a
95 page supplement
from the study
stated that 100% of the members of those tribes were evangelical
Protestants. So, this is the most likely reason for their generosity - they
had been transformed into generous individuals through the power of Jesus
Christ.

Conclusion

The Moral Landscape is Sam Harris' latest rant against religion.
Contrary to the book's subtitle, Harris doesn't even attempt to show how science
could be used to determine moral values. Instead, he is constantly referring to
possible future scientific research that might aid in such a determination. The Moral Landscape
is brimming with liberal political ideology, which seems to be Harris'
substitute for the failure of science to provide definitive answers to moral
questions. If you are a liberal atheist, you will probably love the book,
although it certainly does not address the question that its title suggests.

References

"The truth about us is plain to see: most of us are powerfully absorbed by
selfish desires almost every moment of our lives; our attention to our own pains
and pleasures could scarcely be more acute; only the most piercing cries of
anonymous suffering capture our interest, and then fleetingly. And yet, when we
consciously reflect on what we should do, an angel of beneficence and
impartiality seems to spread its wings within us: we genuinely want fair and
just societies; we want other to have their hopes realized; we want to leave
the world better than we found it." Harris, S. 2010.
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press,
New York, NY, pp. 58-59.

For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the
willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good
that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing
it, but sin which dwells in me. (Apostle Paul, Romans 7:18-20)

I said to myself, "Come now, I will test you with pleasure. So enjoy
yourself." And behold, it too was futility. I said of laughter, "It is
madness," and of pleasure, "What does it accomplish?" I explored with my
mind how to stimulate my body with wine while my mind was guiding me wisely,
and how to take hold of folly, until I could see what good there is for the
sons of men to do under heaven the few years of their lives. I enlarged my
works: I built houses for myself, I planted vineyards for myself; I made
gardens and parks for myself and I planted in them all kinds of fruit trees;
I made ponds of water for myself from which to irrigate a forest of growing
trees. I bought male and female slaves and I had home born slaves. Also I
possessed flocks and herds larger than all who preceded me in Jerusalem.
Also, I collected for myself silver and gold and the treasure of kings and
provinces. I provided for myself male and female singers and the pleasures
of men--many concubines. (Ecclesiastes 2:1-8)

"Our sense of our own freedom results from not paying attention to what
it is actually like to be what we are. The moment we do pay attention, we
begin to see that free will is nowhere to be found, and our subjectivity is perfectly compatible with truth."

"The answer to the question "What should I believe and
why should I believe it?" is generally a scientific one. Believe a
proposition because it is well supported by theory and evidence; believe it
because it has been experimentally verified..." Ibid, p. 144.

"Science has long been in the values business. Despite a widespread
belief to the contrary, scientific validity is not the result of scientists
abstaining from make value judgments; rather scientific validity is the
result of scientists making their best effort to value principles
of reasoning that link their beliefs to reality, through reliable chains of
evidence and argument." Ibid, p. 143-144.

Ibid, pp. 134-135.

Ibid, p. 68.

"We have already begun to see that morality, like rationality, implies
the existence of certain norms-that is, it does not merely describe how we
think and behave; it tells us how we should think and behave. One
norm that morality and rationality share is the interchangeability of
perspective.47 The solution to a problem should not depend on whether you
are the husband or the wife, the employer or the employee, the creditor or
debtor, etc." Ibid, pp.80-81.

Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Jesus,
Christ, Luke 6:31)

"The same point can be made in the opposite direction: even a liberal
like myself, enamored as I am of thinking in terms of harm and fairness, can
readily see that my vision of the good life must be safeguarded from the
aggressive tribalism of others." Harris, S. 2010.
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values, Free Press,
New York, NY, p. 90.